Sex Roles, Vol. 13, Nos. 11/12, 1985

The Relationship Between Sex-Role Orientation and Resolution of Eriksonian Developmental Crises 1 Carol A n n Glazer and J e r o m e B. D u s e k 2

Syracuse University

A total of 139female and 133 male undergraduates completed the Bern Sexrole Inventory and the Inventory of Psychosocial Development, a measure o f resolution of Erikson "s developmental crises, in a study designed to assess the relationship between sex roles and psychological adjustment. The results indicated that the androgynous subjects had higher adjustment scores than subjects in the other three sex-role classifications. Further analyses revealed that both the masculinity and femininity components of androgyny were significant predictors of adjustment, reinforcing the suggestion that androgyny is a more optimal sex role. It was also demonstrated that the masculine component of androgyny was associated more strongly with adjustment. The results are discussed in terms of theories o f the virtue of an androgynous as opposed to sex-typed sex role.

Since the conceptualization of the concept of psychological androgyny considerable research has been aimed at evaluating the contention that an androgynous sex-role orientation is associated with better psychological adjustment than the stereotypic masculine and feminine sex roles (see Bern, 1974, 1981; Della-Selva & Dusek, 1984; Flaherty & Dusek, 1980; Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson, 1978; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Results of some studies support the contention, whereas other research demonstrates an

~This report is based in part on an Honors thesis submitted by the first author to Syracuse University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology. :To whom all correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13210. 653 0360-0025/85/1200-0653504.50/0

© 1985 Plenum Publishing Corporation

654

Glazer and Dusek

advantage in adjustment for those with a strong traditionally masculine sex role. The fundamental reason for these inconsistencies may lie in the failure to base research on the relationship between sex roles and adjustment on appropriate theory (Della-Selva & Dusek, 1984). One theory that is particularly well suited to studying the relationship between sex roles and adjustment is Erikson's (1963; 1968) theory of development. Erikson proposes that development progresses through a sequence of stages, each characterized by a major crises that must be resolved. Although some of the crises, for example, Industry versus Inferiority, are clearly instrumental in character, others, for example, Intimacy versus Isolation, are expressive in nature. Because some of the crises, for example, Identity versus Identity diffusion, are directly relevant to sex roles (Waterman & Whitbourne, 1982), studying the relationship between sex roles and resolution of the crises can provide insight into the relative virtue of an androgynous versus sex-typed sex role. Waterman and Whitbourne (1982) had college students and adults complete the Bern Sex-role Inventory (BSRI; Bern, 1974) and the Inventory of Psychosocial Development (IPD; Constantinople, 1969), a measure of resolution of Erikson's crises. The androgynous subjects evidenced greater adjustment than sex-typed or undifferentiated subjects, although inspection of their data indicates some possible age differences in this finding. DellaSelva and Dusek (1984) had college students complete the BSRI and the Industry versus Inferiority and Identity versus Identity diffusion subscales from the IPD. As in the Waterman and Whitbourne (1982) study, the androgynous subjects had higher means on the industry minus inferiority and identity minus identity diffusion scores. However, Della-Selva and Dusek (1984) also reported that the advantage of the androgynous subjects was limited to the industry and identity measures. The androgynous and sex-typed subjects scored equivalently on the inferiority and identity diffusion scales of the IPD. Finally, Della-Selva and Dusek (1984) reported that the masculinity component of sex typing was a stronger predictor of successful resolution of the crises than the femininity component but that the femininity component added to prediction. Hence, they concluded that androgyny was indeed related to more successful psychological adjustment than was masculinity. The purpose of the research reported here was to replicate and extend the Della-Selva and Dusek (1984) findings by testing college students with the BSRI and all the scales from the IPD. The latter procedure allows testing for the relative importance of the masculinity and femininity components of the BSRI on adjustment measures that are both instrumental and expressive, something not done previously.

Androgyny and Identity

655

METHOD Subjects

The subjects (N = 272) were 139 female and 133 male college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a private university in upstate New York. All partially completed a course requirement, although participation was voluntary. Instruments and Procedure

All subjects completed the BSRI (Bem, 1974) and the IPD (Constantinople, 1969) in groups o f 30-40 people. The BSRI contains 60 items, 20 masculine, 20 feminine, and 20 sex-role neutral social desirability items. After reading each item subjects indicated on a 7-point scale the degree to which the characteristic was true of them. Total scores from the masculinity and femininity scales were used to devise sex-role classifications. Those whose scores were above (below) the median on both scales were classified as androgynous (undifferentiated). Subjects who scored above the median on the masculinity (femininity) scale and below the median on the femininity (masculinity) scale were classified as masculine (feminine). Reliability and validity data for the instrument may be found in Bern (1974; 1981). The IPD contains 12 scales, each composed o f 5 items, reflecting successful and unsuccessful resolution of each of Erikson's first six crises (see Waterman & Whitbourne, 1981, for reliability data). Subjects indicate on a 7-point scale the degree to which each item characterizes them. Scores were calculated for each subscale and for each crisis (score for positive resolution minus score for negative resolution, e.g., Trust, Mistrust, Trust minus Mistrust). The individual scale scores could range from 5 to 35, and the difference scores could range from - 3 0 to 30. The higher (lower) the score on the positive (negative) scale, or the higher the difference score, the greater the adjustment. A n alyses

Hypotheses about the relationship between sex-role classification and adjustment were tested with a series of 2 × 4 (Gender × Sex-role classification) analyses of variance on the individual scale scores and on the difference scores.

656

Glazer and Dusek

For each subscale and difference score a multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the relative contributions of masculinity and femininity to adjustment. The initial model employed included the main effects of masculinity, femininity, and gender, and all interactions. Because none of the interaction terms was significant, they were dropped from the model and the analyses were redone.

RESULTS

Analyses of Variance The summary of the analyses of variance m a y be found in Table I. The mean score for each of the dependent variables is listed in Table II for each sex-role classification. Sex-Role Classification. Sex-role classification was a significant effect in all but four cases: shame, a u t o n o m y minus shame, identity diffusion, and isolation. Greater adjustment was generally associated with an Table I. Summary of Gender X Sex-Role Classification A N O VAS for Each Dependent Variable Mean square for effect a Measure Trust (T) Mistrust (M) T-M A u t o n o m y (A) Shame (S) A-S Initiative (I) Guilt (G) I-G Industry (Ind) Inferiority (Inf) Ind-Inf Identity (Id) Diffusion (D) Id-D Intimacy (Int) Isolation (Iso) Int-Iso

S

C

S x C

E

44.91 55.07 .17 .75 .01 .27 5.08 114.42 s 70.74 82.29 b 550.53 a 1058.51 a 15.95 72.49 b 156.47 b 4.77 52.91 22.29

184.24 a 78.11 a 503.11 a 95.62 a 5.16 63.17 340.64 a 69.65 b 621.40 a 413.73 a 69.88 s 304.92 c 207.61 a 8.48 235.01 a 170.64 d 27.12 318.13 a

15.96 28.05 82.73 2.36 11.86 13.55 11.66 28.74 13.97 16.82 6.51 27.83 4.48 9.01 20.80 11.95 26.50 78.99

15.34 18.27 51.60 13.91 13.59 28.68 9.02 18.23 31.38 16.72 25.26 64.91 14.30 15.49 35.04 9.64 20.11 35.50

"S = gender, C = classification, E = error; df = 1 for gender, 3 for classification, 3 for the interaction, and 264 for error. bp < .05.

~p < .Ol. ~p < .ool.

657

Androgyny and Identity Table II. M e a n Score for E a c h Sex-Role C l a s s i f i c a t i o n on E a c h D e p e n d e n t Variable Sex-role classification ~ Measure T r u s t (T) M i s t r u s t (M) T-M A u t o n o m y (A) S h a m e (S) A-S I n i t i a t i v e (I) G u i l t (G) I-G I n d u s t r y (Ind) I n f e r i o r i t y (Inf) Ind-lnf I d e n t i t y (Id) D i f f u s i o n (D) Id-D I n t i m a c y (Int) I s o l a t i o n (Iso) Int-Iso

A

M

F

U

26.77 12.47 14.30 25.72 17.42 8.30 30.34 15.27 15.08 27.25 16.73 10.52 27.88 17.86 10.02 28.94 13.19 15.75

24.73 14.21 10.52 25.62 17.17 8.25 28.10 15.52 12.58 26.51 16.10 10.41 26.59 18.92 7.68 26.45 14.70 11.89

22.79 14.67 7.99 23.13 17.43 5.71 26.01 17.01 8.99 25.88 16.55 9.33 25.01 17.93 7.08 26.95 13.91 13.04

23.39 14.59 8.80 24.02 16.85 7.16 24.70 15.85 7.85 24.16 18.05 6.11 23.54 18.69 4.85 24.89 14.87 10.02

Newman-Keuls A A A A

> < > =

M M M M

> = = >

F F U F

= = > =

U U F U

A A A A

> = > =

M M M M

> < > =

F F F F

= = = >

U U U U

A = M = F > U A > M > F > U A > M = F > U A > M = F > U A > M = F > U

~A = a n d r o g y n o u s , M = m a s c u l i n e , F = feminine, U = u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d .

androgynous sex role (see Table II). Sex-typed individuals, particularly those with a masculine orientation, showed more successful resolution o f the crises than undifferentiated subjects. Gender. The effect due to gender was statistically significant on several of the measures. On the Guilt scale the mean score of the males (16.62) was higher than the mean score of the females (15.76). On the Industry minus Inferiority measure the females had a higher mean score (11.05) than the males (M = 7.20). The females scored higher on the Industry scale (female M = 26.55; male M = 25.38) and lower on the Inferiority scale (female M = 15.50; male M = 18.18). The females also scored higher on the Identity versus Identity Diffusion measure (female M = 8.27; male M = 6.54). Although the mean scores of male and female did not differ on the Identity scale, the males had a higher mean score (19.01) than the females ( M = 17.71) on the Identity Diffusion scale.

Multiple Regression A n alyses To assess the relative influence of masculinity and femininity on the scores for the resolution of the crises, multiple regression analyses were performed. As noted above, the model included masculinity, femininity, and

658

Glazer and Dusek

Table IlL Results of Multiple Regression Analyses~ Measure Trust (T) Mistrust (M) T-M Autonomy (A) Shame (S) A-S Initiative (I) Guilt (G) I-G Industry (Ind) Inferiority (Inf) Ind-Inf Identity (Ind) Diffusion (D) Id-D Intimacy (Int) Isolation (Iso) Int-Iso

Masculinity F p d 55.79 .001 .91 17.43 .001 .51 42.62 .001 .80 71.51 .001 1.03 38.06 204.62 30.78 150.30 32.68 17.58 30.73 95.13

.001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001

.75 1.75 .68 1.50 .70 .51 .68 1.19

39.16 34.96 8.18 28.52

.001 .001 .01 .001

.77 .72 .35 .65

Femininity F p d 4.58 .05 .26 4.20 4.52 3.53 6.32 19.04

.05 .05 .06 .05 .001

.25 .26 .23 .25 .53

8.93

.01

.37

10.49

.01

.40

8.18 43.19 6.91 29.69

.01 .001 .01 .001

.35 .80 .32 .67

adf = 1,268 for all effects.

gender. Because the significant gender effects r e p l i c a t e d t h o s e f r o m the analyses o f v a r i a n c e , we d e a l here o n l y with effects due to m a s c u l i n i t y a n d femininity. In a d d i t i o n , C o h e n ' s (1977) d value, an index o f effect size, was calculated. C o h e n notes t h a t d values o f .2, .4, a n d .8 m a y be c o n s i d e r e d to d e n o t e small, m e d i u m , a n d large effects, respectively. A s m a y be seen in T a b l e I I I , b o t h the m a s c u l i n i t y a n d f e m i n i n i t y c o m p o n e n t s were significant p r e d i c t o r s , with increasing m a s c u l i n i t y or f e m i n i n i t y being a s s o c i a t e d with greater a d j u s t m e n t (higher scores o n measures o f successful r e s o l u t i o n a n d lower scores on measures o f unsuccessful r e s o l u t i o n ) . These results p o i n t to the i m p o r t a n c e o f an a n d r o g y n o u s as o p p o s e d to t r a d i t i o n a l l y m a s c u l i n e sex role for o p t i m a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a d j u s t m e n t . H o w e v e r , the m a s c u l i n i t y c o m p o n e n t was a significant p r e d i c t o r m o r e o f t e n t h a n the f e m i n i n i t y c o m p o n e n t . M o r e o v e r , with the exception o f t h e scores i n v o l v e d in the I n t i m a c y versus I s o l a t i o n crisis, when b o t h the m a s c u l i n i t y a n d f e m i n i n i t y c o m p o n e n t s were significant, the m a s c u l i n i t y c o m p o n e n t was b y far t h e s t r o n g e r p r e d i c t o r o f r e s o l u t i o n o f the crises.

DISCUSSION T h e a n d r o g y n o u s subjects h a d the highest d i f f e r e n c e scores, indicating m o r e successful r e s o l u t i o n o f the crisis, o n the T r u s t versus Mis-

Androgyny and Identity

659

trust, Initiative versus Guilt, Identity versus Identity Diffusion, and Intimacy versus Isolation crises. The four sex roles did not differ on the Autonomy versus Shame measure, and the androgynous, masculine, and feminine subjects had scores that were equivalent and higher than the undifferentiated subjects on the Industry versus Inferiority measure. These data support the contention that, in general, an androgynous orientation is associated with better adjustment (Bern, 1981; Flaherty & Dusek, 1980). As Della-Selva and Dusek (1984) suggested, this advantage is due largely to the measures of positive resolution. The androgynous subjects had the highest scores on the Trust, Initiative, Identity, and Intimacy scales. The androgynous and masculine subjects had equivalently high scores on the Autonomy scale, and the androgynous, masculine, and feminine groups had equivalently high scores on the Industry scale. Although the androgynous subjects had lower scores on the Mistrust and Guilt measures, they had no advantage on any of the other measures of unsuccessful resolution. Moreover, the androgynous subjects scored higher on measures of both instrumental and expressive aspects of the crises. For example, the androgynous subjects scored high on the Autonomy and Inititative scales, which reflect instrumentality, but they also had the highest score on the Intimacy scale, which reflects expressivity (see Della-Selva & Dusek, 1984; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1981, 1982). Findings such as these attest to the importance of an androgynous sex role for psychological adjustment. Although Erikson's characterization of each crisis is heavily laden with an instrumental orientation, the balance of masculine and feminine characteristics stands the androgynous subjects in good stead. It is interesting to note that with one exception (the Trust minus Mistrust score) the undifferentiated subjects had the poorest adjustment scores. As in other research (e.g., Della-Selva & Dusek, 1984; Flaherty & Dusek, 1980; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1982), then, it appears that to be sex typed is better than to be undifferentiated. Just as viewing the self androgynously is related to optimal development, viewing the self as traditionally sex typed aids adjustment, even if in a somewhat limited manner, because it allows one to view the self positively in some ways and because it insulates the individual against viewing the self negatively. Della-Selva and Dusek (1984) suggested that the androgyny versus masculinity controversy with respect to adjustment (see Flaherty & Dusek, 1980; Jones et al., 1978) best be abandoned. They argued that a more appropriate concern is the investigation of the degree to which masculinity and femininity contribute to adjustment, because it is clear that both are important. The multiple regression analyses bear on this suggestion. The masculinity component was a significant predictor more frequently than was the femininity component (see Table III). Moreover, as evidenced by the d values, the masculinity component was much the

660

Glazer and Dusek

stronger predictor. This is entirely consistent with the instrumental orientation of Erikson's (1963; 1968) theory and with our cultural setting, in which instrumentality is highly valued and related to adjustment. However, it is important to note that femininity does aid adjustment. Higher femininity was associated with greater adjustment in 11 instances. The results of the multiple regression analyses, then, do not support those (e.g., Jones et al., 1978) who argue that adjustment is basically a result of higher masculinity scores. Several gender effects were statistically significant. Males had higher scores than females on the Guilt, Inferiority, and Identity Diffusion measures. Females had higher scores than males on the Industry, Industry minus Inferiority, and Identity minus Identity Diffusion measures. As in other research (e.g., Constantinople, 1969; Della-Selva & Dusek, 1984; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1981) the females seemed to be further along in resolving the various crises. Future research should be aimed at clarifying these gender differences. Finally, the results of this study point to the virtue of studying the nature of measures of adjustment vis-a-vis sex roles. When considered in light of other research (e.g,, Flaherty & Dusek, 1980) the findings of this study highlight the importance of assessing the degree to which measures of adjustment are steeped in instrumental or expressive characteristics. It appears that the relationship between sex roles and adjustment is closely tied to the expressive or instrumental tone in the measure of adjustment.

REFERENCES

Bern, S. The measurement of psychologicalandrogyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162. Bern, S. Gender schematheory: A cognitiveaccount of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354-364. Cohen, J. Statisticalpower analysis for the behavioralsciences. New York: AcademicPress, 1977. Constantinople, A. An Eriksonian measure of personality developmentin collegestudents. Development Psychology, 1969, 1, 357-372. Della-Selva, P., & Dusek, J. Sex role orientation and resolution of Eriksonian crises during the later adolescent years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1948, 42, 204-212. Erikson, E. Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton, 1963. Erikson, E. Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton, 1968. Flaherty, J., & Dusek, J. An investigation of the relationship betweenpsychologicalandrogyny and comonent of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 984-992. Jones, W., Chernovetz, M., & Hansson, R. The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 298-313. Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.

Androgyny and Identity

661

Waterman, A., & Whitbourne, S. The inventory of psychosocial development: A review and evaluation. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1981, ••(5). (Ms. No. 2179). Waterman, A., & Whitbourne, S. Androgyny and psychosocial development among college students and adults. Journal of Personality, 1982, 50, 121-133.